CS SCJ 1240/22
CHET RAM Vs. THE SDM
09/08/2024
Present : Sh. Manoj Mishra, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff.
None for Defendants, despite repeated
calls.
Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that he
is unable to procure the latest Revenue Record/Fard
and continues to place reliance on the Revenue
Record/Fard for the year 2001-02.
In view of the submissions, relist for order
at 1:00 p.m. NEETI
Digitally signed
by NEETI SURI
MISHRA
SURI Date:
MISHRA 2024.08.09
16:52:52 +0530
( Neeti Suri Mishra )
SCJ / RC / North
Rohini Court / 09/08/2024
At 1:00 p.m.
Present : Sh. Manoj Mishra, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff.
Sh. Sunil Kumar and Ms. Poonam,
Ld. Counsel for Defendant.
This order shall dispose of the application
moved by Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
CPC.
This application has been moved in the suit
for permanent injunction and relief prayed by
Defendant through this application is that the
Defendants, their representatives, associates etc. be
restrained from entering and dispossessing the
Plaintiff from the property situated within Khasra No.
10/18, located in the Revenue Estate of Tikri Khurd,
Narela, Delhi (0-8) (hereinafter referred to as the
‘suit property’) and more particularly shown in red
colour in the Site Plan appended with the Plaint.
Plaintiff has averred that he is the owner of
the suit property and is having all the relevant
documents pertaining to the ownership of the property
as the suit property is his ancestral property. He has
submitted that vide an order dated 22/02/2007, the
Lieutenant Governor of Delhi had directed that the
land comprised in the Revenue Estate of Village – Tikri
Khurd, Narela, which had been earlier notified under
Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on
23/02/2006 and 22/02/2007 respectively, be taken into
possession except the land which is (i) part of 20
Points Programme and is duly built up at site as per
the Survey Report of Director, Panchayat on
29/07/2010, (ii) built up prior to issuance of notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (iii)
under consideration pursuant to a request for
denotification, which is pending before the Land &
Building Department and (iv) under stay of
dispossession or status quo order existing on it by any
competent Court.
It is Plaintiff’s case that the suit property is
one which had been built up even prior to issuance of
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, which is evident from the Khasra Girdawri
for the period between 2001-2002 dated 21/12/2001.
Plaintiff has averred that some anti-social
elements are threatening to dispossess the Plaintiff
from the suit property in a bid to grab it illegally and
are planning to execute forged and fabricated
documents. He has submitted that his settled
possession is also jeopardized by the officials of
Defendant No. 1 who reached the suit property on
different dates including on 28/08/2022, 30/08/2022,
30/09/2022 and 06/09/2022, threatening to dispossess
the Plaintiff from it. Plaintiff has averred that
accordingly, till the disposal of the present suit,
Defendants be restrained from dispossessing him from
the suit property.
In response to the Plaintiff’s suit for
Permanent Injunction and the application moved under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, Defendant No. 2
filed the Written Statement besides filing reply to the
above stated application. From the side of Defendant
No. 2 myriad objections to the Plaintiff’s suit were
raised. It has been alleged that the suit is not
maintainable as Plaintiff had failed to serve the
mandatory statutory notice under Section 53B of the
Delhi Development Act. Secondly, it has been alleged
that Plaintiff is an encroacher upon the Government
land, having no right, title or interest in the suit
property, in view of the fact that the land in dispute
already stands acquired by the Land Acquisition
Collector vide Award bearing No. 10/2008-09DC(NW)
and even the physical possession of the same has
been handed over to Defendant No. 2. It has further
been submitted that by way of the award,
compensation has also been awarded to the land
holders whose land was acquired by the Land
Acquisition Collector and Plaintiff’s name also can be
seen in the list of the beneficiaries.
On behalf of Defendant No. 2, it has also
been urged that barring a copy of Khasra Girdawri, no
other document has been placed on record by Plaintiff.
to display his ownership over the suit property.
Therefore, on behalf of Defendant No. 2, it was
asserted that the application moved by Plaintiff be
dismissed as no right, title or interest exists in favour of
the Plaintiff qua the suit property.
Submissions advanced by Ld. Counsel for
both parties have been heard at length and even the
entire record of the case has been meticulously
perused.
Before embarking on adjudication of the
application, I deem it fit to mention that when it was
realized that except copy of Khasra Girdawri for the
year 2001-2002, no other document of ownership has
been placed on record by Plaintiff, the Court granted
an opportunity to the Plaintiff to file ownership
documents with regard to the suit property, but once
again Plaintiff has submitted that he could not obtain
any other document and placed reliance on the Khasra
Girdawri originally filed with the Plaint.
The undisputed and settled parameters for
the grant of interim relief in a suit for injunction,
whether permanent or mandatory are that the Plaintiff
must be able to disclose a strong prima facie case in
his favour. He must also show that balance of
convenience lies in his favour and that irreparable loss
which is incapable of being compensated in monetary
terms shall be occasioned in case the desired relief is
not granted at the interim stage. In the case of Dalpat
Kumar Vs. Prahlad Singh,AIR 1993 SC 276 the
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the phrases,
“prima facie case”, “balance of convenience” and
“irreparable loss” are not rhetoric phrases for
incantation but are words of elasticity and width
intended to meet myriad situations presented by men’s
ingenuity in given facts and circumstances and should
always be hedged with sound exercise of judicial
discretion to meet the ends of justice. It is further
settled that the existence of a prima facie right and the
infraction or threat of infraction of the same is a
condition for the grant of temporary injunction but
besides this, the Court must also be satisfied that non-
interference by the Court would result in irreparable
injury to the party seeking relief and that plaintiff has
no other remedy available to him except one to grant
the injunction.
Further, in Seema Arshad Zahir Vs.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, (2006) 5
SCC 282, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the
principles and observed as under :
“29. The discretion of the
Court is exercised to grant a temporary
injunction only when the following
requirements are made out by the
plaintiff : (i) existence of a prima facie
case as pleaded, necessitating
protection of plaintiff’s rights by issue of
a temporary injunction; (ii) when the
need for protection of defendant’s rights
or likely infringement of defendant’s
rights, the balance of convenience
tilting in favour of plaintiff; and (iii) clear
possibility of irreparable injury being
caused to plaintiff if the temporary
injunction is not granted. In addition,
temporary injunction being an equitable
relief, the discretion to grant such relief
will be exercised only when the
plaintiff’s conduct is free from blame
and he approached the court with clean
hands.”
It is the case of Plaintiff that he is the
owner and in possession of the suit property which is a
land over which construction has been raised by him
and which construction has been existing even prior to
the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act. For displaying his ownership of
the suit property, Plaintiff has placed reliance on the
photocopy document of Khasra Girdawri of the year,
2001-2002. I have perused the Khasra Girdawri and
undoubtedly, the name of Plaintiff exists in the column
of tenure holders/Bhumidars of the land. But the law
with regard to the legal sanctity attached to revenue
records is no more res integra as the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in a recent judgment titled The State of Punjab
& Ors. Vs. Bhagwant Pal Singh @ Bhagwant Singh
(Deceased) through LRs, (decided on 10/07/2024)
has categorically stated that revenue records are only
entries for the purpose of realizing tax by the Municipal
Corporations or land revenue by Gram Sabhas and
they do not confer any title upon the person whose
name is mentioned therein. Accordingly, following the
ratio of the above mentioned decision, there remains
no room for doubt that Plaintiff has failed to show any
document of ownership of the suit property. It is thus
explicit that he has failed to disclose a prima facie
case in his favour. The failure to disclose prima facie
case is also evident from the fact that Plaintiff is
unable to procure the latest Fard/Revenue Record
showing even his possession of the suit property.
Since Plaintiff has failed to disclose existence of prima
facie case in his favour, there arises no need to even
examine the Plaintiff’s contentions on the anvil of
balance of convenience and irreparable loss/injury.
Therefore, in light of the above stated
reasons, the application moved by Plaintiff under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC stands dismissed.
Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
No objections made herein above shall
have any bearing on the merits of the suit.
Further, since pleadings are complete, I
proceed to frame the preliminary issue with regard to
the maintainability of the present suit. Preliminary
issue is as under :-
PRELIMINARY ISSUE
1. “Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is
maintainable in its present form? OPP.
List for arguments on the preliminary issue
framed herein above for 17/08/2024.
Digitally signed
NEETI by NEETI SURI
MISHRA
SURI Date:
MISHRA 2024.08.09
16:53:05 +0530
( Neeti Suri Mishra )
SCJ / RC / North
Rohini Court / 09/08/2024
